I don't think anyone has the testing "norm" established yet. Until everybody agrees that they do have a norm for testing which can be reproduced multiple times, they shouldn't be recalling anything that meets standard under one test but doesn't under another. And are they testing for a typical set-up as you would find in a pool? Like in an actual pool? Set up with multiple main drains? Using the same dimensions on their test boards to simulate bodies on a multitude of pool tests? (When did "boards" start drowning?)
I think before anyone goes crying wolf to a bunch of legislators whose pool experience is nil they need to straighten out what they are saying before the public gets force-fed some more restrictive legislation that creates more back-logs and closures. I believe that if the drain covers are to be re-engineered, they sunset the old drains out over a reasonable span of time that meets the needs of replacing new units. I would think that with what we have, we are far safer today than we were before VGB and we could afford to phase in any new legislatively-mandated equipment.
Further, I think whoever is testing for the public needs to publish visual documentation of an actual test in progress demonstrating objectivity with multiple pool set ups. Sometimes it doesn't take a rocket scientist to point and laugh at obvious disparities. Hopefully, with visual aids, we are impressed. And the test should be able to be reproduced multiple times, under multiple types of engineering and set ups. If professionals have questions about the testing disparities, think of how a legislative staff might have even more questions and unfortunately they might come up with their own answers that history has shown doesn't always match up with resources that are available. That could affect payrolls at thousands of centers forced to close with devices that may in all actuality be safe already. I would hate to think that anyone would cast doubt just to be of benefit to the industrial supply side. And that is why the tests need to go public. Let us all decide or deride, the process used to show how a "board" can drown by entrapment.
Holly - 13 years ago
I think all the covers should be retested - at the manufacturers expense - by the CPSC itself. Any covers that do not meet the criteria should then be recalled. Based on my research and the criteria, I think a great many of the covers are probably satisfactory.
But then, I don't think any pool that is gravity feed and had multiple main drains should have been required to replace their grates - that is just my opinion.
I don't think anyone has the testing "norm" established yet. Until everybody agrees that they do have a norm for testing which can be reproduced multiple times, they shouldn't be recalling anything that meets standard under one test but doesn't under another. And are they testing for a typical set-up as you would find in a pool? Like in an actual pool? Set up with multiple main drains? Using the same dimensions on their test boards to simulate bodies on a multitude of pool tests? (When did "boards" start drowning?)
I think before anyone goes crying wolf to a bunch of legislators whose pool experience is nil they need to straighten out what they are saying before the public gets force-fed some more restrictive legislation that creates more back-logs and closures. I believe that if the drain covers are to be re-engineered, they sunset the old drains out over a reasonable span of time that meets the needs of replacing new units. I would think that with what we have, we are far safer today than we were before VGB and we could afford to phase in any new legislatively-mandated equipment.
Further, I think whoever is testing for the public needs to publish visual documentation of an actual test in progress demonstrating objectivity with multiple pool set ups. Sometimes it doesn't take a rocket scientist to point and laugh at obvious disparities. Hopefully, with visual aids, we are impressed. And the test should be able to be reproduced multiple times, under multiple types of engineering and set ups. If professionals have questions about the testing disparities, think of how a legislative staff might have even more questions and unfortunately they might come up with their own answers that history has shown doesn't always match up with resources that are available. That could affect payrolls at thousands of centers forced to close with devices that may in all actuality be safe already. I would hate to think that anyone would cast doubt just to be of benefit to the industrial supply side. And that is why the tests need to go public. Let us all decide or deride, the process used to show how a "board" can drown by entrapment.
I think all the covers should be retested - at the manufacturers expense - by the CPSC itself. Any covers that do not meet the criteria should then be recalled. Based on my research and the criteria, I think a great many of the covers are probably satisfactory.
But then, I don't think any pool that is gravity feed and had multiple main drains should have been required to replace their grates - that is just my opinion.